Can we kill Irish once and for all

Iwasfrozen

Mr. G wrote: »

Passing ordinary level Irish isn't difficult. Having looked at the marking scheme for the Leaving Cert, it is actually quite difficult to fail it which is one of the reasons why it has one of the lowest failure rates across the Leaving Cert. I do not have an issue with it being manditory but I do feel it should be optional for the exam, with the choice of choosing another language instead.

The Irish language is part of our culture. I think it's important we still teach it but at a non-exam, yet still manditory level. I would hate for it to disappear

If that was the case students would just study during Irish. Same thing happened with PE and religion in my old school.

AngryHippie

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If that was the case students would just study during Irish. Same thing happened with PE and religion in my old school.

You conveniently skipped over a few of the points I had made in your "summation" a few posts back.

1. The cognitive benefits of a second language are greater the earlier the exposure
2. Our Primary teachers are not trained to teach French, German etc
3. Our Primary teachers are trained to teach Irish
4. By the end of Primary cycle, the 2nd language of Irish has already been taught for 6 years
5. It is not particularly difficult to get a pass grade in ordinary or foundation level Irish at Junior or Leaving certificate
6. It is wasteful to spend 6 years learning something and then abandon it for your state exams when a pass grade can easily be achieved
7. If time constraints require a student to take Irish at a foundation level, it does free up plenty of time for other subjects (as was done in PE and Religion in your previous school)

The bottom line is education is not about training for a job. Its training for life, and to minimize it to serving the function of getting onto a third level course, so that you can get a job is doing a great dis-service to the concepts behind it.
Education also serves the function of teaching you to think critically, not just at work, but socially, politically, and emotionally. It serves to give you the tools you need to be able to learn without having to do.

Say it does get dropped as a compulsory subject, how long before Primary teachers are no longer able to teach it at a primary school level ?
What then ? Does it get replaced with another language ? Does that language become compulsory ?

Getting rid of it causes more problems than it solves?

I would love to see an age profile added to the poll, and I would also love to see how many people that voted either way would have chosen it if weren't compulsory, as all of that data has a major bearing on the discussion.

Iwasfrozen

AngryHippie wrote: »

You conveniently skipped over a few of the points I had made in your "summation" a few posts back.

1. The cognitive benefits of a second language are greater the earlier the exposure
2. Our Primary teachers are not trained to teach French, German etc
3. Our Primary teachers are trained to teach Irish
4. By the end of Primary cycle, the 2nd language of Irish has already been taught for 6 years
5. It is not particularly difficult to get a pass grade in ordinary or foundation level Irish at Junior or Leaving certificate
6. It is wasteful to spend 6 years learning something and then abandon it for your state exams when a pass grade can easily be achieved
7. If time constraints require a student to take Irish at a foundation level, it does free up plenty of time for other subjects (as was done in PE and Religion in your previous school)

The bottom line is education is not about training for a job. Its training for life, and to minimize it to serving the function of getting onto a third level course, so that you can get a job is doing a great dis-service to the concepts behind it.
Education also serves the function of teaching you to think critically, not just at work, but socially, politically, and emotionally. It serves to give you the tools you need to be able to learn without having to do.

Say it does get dropped as a compulsory subject, how long before Primary teachers are no longer able to teach it at a primary school level ?
What then ? Does it get replaced with another language ? Does that language become compulsory ?

Getting rid of it causes more problems than it solves?

I would love to see an age profile added to the poll, and I would also love to see how many people that voted either way would have chosen it if weren't compulsory, as all of that data has a major bearing on the discussion.

Oh boy, an answer that didn't mention culture, I feel as giddy as a school girl on prom night!

1, 2, 3, 4, & 5: We're only arguing for optional Irish in the leaving cert cycle.

5: The difficulty or lack of in ordinary level Irish is irrelevant. If it is easy then logically few will drop it when made optional and there will be little effect.

6: That's for the student to decide. If it is wasteful then logically few will drop it when made optional and there will be little effect.

7: Irrelevant as to whether Irish should be optional

I'm disappointed. An argument that wasn't based around history or culture and all the points are irrelevant. I feel like a Christian woman on her wedding night...

P.S. To the people who thanked his post did you even read it?

AngryHippie

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Oh boy, an answer that didn't mention culture, I feel as giddy as a school girl on prom night!

1, 2, 3, 4, & 5: We're only arguing for optional Irish in the leaving cert cycle.


5: The difficulty or lack of in ordinary level Irish is irrelevant.

6: That's for the student to decide. If it is wasteful then logically few will drop it and there will be no effect.

7: Irrelevant as to whether Irish should be optional

I'm disappointed. An argument that wasn't based around history or culture and all the points are irrelevant. I feel like a Christian woman on her wedding night...

P.S. To the people who thanked his post did you even read it?

1-5 are entirely relevant and pretending they aren't is dismissing relevant information from the discussion because you don't like it or can't refute it. Its a logical progression with the conclusion that the status quo cannot be changed without a reduction in educational quality, or a huge investment in teacher training at primary level.

5. The difficulty is entirely relevant, if it is east to pass, and does not require a huge time commitment, then the majority of your argument about the poor teenagers stressful commitments and high pressure exams go out the window. Again, you can't refute it so you dismiss it. Fairly juvenile

6.Sure, Because Teenagers are famous for rational decisions that benefit their future.

7. Again, completely relevant, but once again, you don't like it can't refute it and so dismiss it by pretending its irrelevant.

I'm not sure what your agenda here is, but if you want to make a point, back it up ? Or if you want to counter mine, back it up ?
Stating that it is irrelevant doesn't make it so.

Iwasfrozen

AngryHippie wrote: »

1-5 are entirely relevant and pretending they aren't is dismissing relevant information from the discussion because you don't like it or can't refute it. Its a logical progression with the conclusion that the status quo cannot be changed without a reduction in educational quality, or a huge investment in teacher training at primary level.

5. The difficulty is entirely relevant, if it is east to pass, and does not require a huge time commitment, then the majority of your argument about the poor teenagers stressful commitments and high pressure exams go out the window. Again, you can't refute it so you dismiss it. Fairly juvenile

6.Sure, Because Teenagers are famous for rational decisions that benefit their future.

7. Again, completely relevant, but once again, you don't like it can't refute it and so dismiss it by pretending its irrelevant.

I'm not sure what your agenda here is, but if you want to make a point, back it up ? Or if you want to counter mine, back it up ?
Stating that it is irrelevant doesn't make it so.

1-5: Not relevant because we're not talking about primary school. You say it's a slippery sloop. Fine, if in a few years after Irish is made optional we're back on here debating making Irish optional in primary school then your points will be relevant. Right now they aren't.

5. Students shouldn't have to learn the subject. It's level of difficulty is irrelevant. "But English and Maths are compulsory too!!!!!" Fine make them all optional.

6. Teenagers are a lot smarter than you give them credit for.

7. Why exactly is it relevant?

AngryHippie

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

1-5: Not relevant because we're not talking about primary school. You say it's a slippery sloop. Fine, if in a few years after Irish is made optional we're back on here debating making Irish optional in primary school then your points will be relevant. Right now they aren't.

5. Students shouldn't have to learn the subject. It's level of difficulty is irrelevant. "But English and Maths are compulsory too!!!!!" Fine make them all optional.

6. Teenagers are a lot smarter than you give them credit for.

7. Why exactly is it relevant?

Points 1-5 are all linked, and are entirely relevant to the discussion. If you can't see that, its because you are blinding yourself with trees.
Look at the dept. of educations mandate to treat education as an overall strategy, rather than focusing on one miniscule element of policy and singling it out for ridicule because it doesn't suit your agenda.

Your point made on no. 5 is ridiculous. the level of difficulty, the time taken, and the requirement and 3rd level were all raised by the OP as being relevant. If you want them off the table start anew thread. If you want to make Maths and English optional, then what language do you propose to set the exam in? It is clear from your presentation of the points that you just want to ignore the realities of the situation and the demands and constraints of education in itself, let alone the fact that you clearly don't deem Language Literacy and Numeracy to be both critical and central to an education if you even suggest making those "optional"

no.6 I never said Teenagers are stupid. my exact words were

Because Teenagers are famous for rational decisions that benefit their future.

I stand by this. Teenagers are prone to making less than sensible decisions, making snap judgements and having volatile emotional states. This has been shown to be largely due to the developmental stage that the emotional centers of their Brains are going through during and shortly after puberty. They are prone to getting frustrated and upset and being brutally honest, they are prone to making poor decisions that they later regret. Not because they are stupid, because they are teenagers.

no. 7 is relevant as it has been used as an argument for scrapping Irish as a compulsory subject. I have stated that it doesn't stand up as a reason to scrap it, and now you say it's irrelevant......:rolleyes:

jackofalltrades

AngryHippie wrote: »

It is not particularly difficult to get a pass grade in ordinary or foundation level Irish at Junior or Leaving certificate

In your opinion. Myself and many others struggled with trying to pass Irish at ordinary level for the Leaving certificate.

It is wasteful to spend 6 years learning something and then abandon it for your state exams when a pass grade can easily be achieved

Why is it wasteful?
In the context of this thread we are talking about people possibly doing two less years in the language.
The Irish they have learnt up to this stage can still be used, if they want to.
It doesn't just disappear.

The bottom line is education is not about training for a job. Its training for life...

It's about both. While it would be great to just educate people for life, this just isn't suitable for the society that we live in.

Say it does get dropped as a compulsory subject, how long before Primary teachers are no longer able to teach it at a primary school level ?

Why would there be a link between the two.
As long as primary schools teachers are taught how to teach Irish at a primary school level, then they will be able to do it.

...I would also love to see how many people that voted either way would have chosen it if weren't compulsory, as all of that data has a major bearing on the discussion.

That data doesn't really have relevance to the discussion.
People should be given the choice regardless of how many choose to take it up.

Steviemoyne

I didn't do Irish for my Leaving Cert. I plain refused to engage with the class or do any exams in it after Junior Cert.

Why? Because any test I had in it I failed, even when asked to repeat it despite my best effort to learn the language, I was humiliated in class by so called "Irish Teachers" who apparently couldn't appreciate that a student had genuine trouble learning a subject simply because the rest of the class were doing ok.

This lead to undue stress and I could see myself that my other subjects were suffering as a result, I have the aptitude to learn languages as I did do one as one of my Leaving Cert subjects and done well in English, Irish however I had no aptitude for and was even struggling with foundation level material.

So I used the time of the classes to study and work on my other subjects. I didn't sit the test and a got a no grade marking for it, this ruled me out of doing numerous things and added on an extra 2 years to my learning experience to get where I am today and I genuinely feel better off for it. Those are 2 years of my life however that I won't get back, all due to the fact that the language is compulsory.

If it cannot be changed to a choice then I would at least like to see changes that mean barriers are not placed on you after the Leaving Cert as a result such as applying for certain colleges or jobs.

FunLover18

Reekwind wrote: »

As it continues to do now when almost every adult member is provided with twelve years (more?) of Irish education? No one really likes how Irish is taught today but it's hard to believe that the standard or popularity of the language would increase without the current investment levels. Let's be frank: unless something is done, Irish will be dead within a century. That 'something to be done' should not include 'stop encouraging people to learn the language'.

It's not increasing with the current investment. The levels of Irish speakers in Ireland has remained pretty constant for the past twenty years. As per the ERSI survey in 07/08 8% of the population claim to be fluent in the language which is unchanged from the 88/89 survey. The primary change occured in those with "only a little" Irish which went from 40% in 88 to 33% in 08, and those with no Irish went from 19% in 88 to 26% in 08, hardly a ringing endorsement for the benefits of mandatory LC Irish. I fail to see how making Irish optional for two years is going to damage the language so much that it will die. Basic Knowledge of the language, and more importantly an interest and passion for the language should be developed in primary school, so yes the curriculum and the way it's taught still needs be altered but the LC curriculum is that last thing that should be altered as students taking LC Irish should be at a level and have an interest where they are able and want to study poetry, prose, and the history of the language.

Reekwind wrote: »

And I go the whole hog because I can see no reason why Irish should be mandatory at any level if not at LC. All the reasons for keeping it at the latter level apply to those below. All you'd have here is repeated threads on 'kill Irish for the Junior Cert', where people would again take issues with the reasons for encouraging the learning of Irish. Or deny that such reasons even exist.

I'm sure Irish speakers would love to see Irish at a point where it doesn't have to be compulsory at JC level? Please tell me that's the dream? You're not happy that such an important part of our culture HAS to be compulsory to survive, are you? Irish is only going to thrive in the hands of those who share a passion for it, if you insist on relying in those who don't they'll only drag it down. Yes, ideally I would like to see Irish optional for JC but let's not get ahead of ourselves, I'm talking years down the line.

Reekwind wrote: »

All of which is somewhat tangential given that "GAA, music, history or dancing" all draw upon Irish to some degree. All were uniformly shaped by a culture in which the Irish language was key. To lose Irish entirely is to to impact these; for even an individual to have absolutely no grasp of the language is to weaken his/her ability to fully enjoy each. You cannot, for example, fully appreciate the GAA or Irish history without some understanding of Irish.

This may be true but not everyone cares about every aspect of culture and wants to fully understand and appreciate it. That's how culture works, people pick and choose. The language isn't lost yet, and I honestly don't think it will be lost. I doubt I'll ever see the day when 'Manager' is on the back of a manager's jersey instead of 'Bannisteoir'. You forget that it works both ways, the GAA, music, etc is not reliant on Irish but they are also doing their own bit to keep the language alive which isn't going to go out the window just because Irish is made optional at LC.

Reekwind wrote: »

I suggest that you try to think at a level beyond the individual. The dropping of mandatory Irish would clearly be of significance to the overall standard of Irish in Ireland. To suggest otherwise is to argue that current investment levels and exam structures have absolutely no impact whatsoever, which, even if you believe that Irish is taught poorly, is impossible to seriously credit. The State clearly feels that maintaining a population of Irish speakers is desirable, for reasons that have been hashed over many times in this thread. To argue that this is wrong but that you need produce "nothing to defend or justify" your position as to why this is wrong is a cop-out borne of an excessive narrow view.

Why should the last two years of a fourteen year education have any impact on the standard of Irish. I think you'll agree that the vast majority of students will drop Irish post LC anyway so what could possibly be the impact of letting them drop it two years earlier. As mentioned earlier there are incentives to encourage the learning of Irish, there are Irish schools primary and secondary, it's not like there aren't job incentives for Irish, so why is mandatory Irish at LC so important? Yeh, yeh, it's part of our culture, but is there ANY scientific research that shows mandatory Irish is as vital as everyone seems to think. I am not thinking about the individual I'm thinking about the majority of LC students who instead of spending hours studying a language most of them will never use could be studying a subject they deem more beneficial for the careers or their mind broadening.

Reekwind wrote: »

And, again, this idea that there is "a lack of facts or arguments supporting compulsory Irish" is nonsense. Even a cursory skim through this thread (or any other thread on this subject) would show that. What people really mean is 'a lack of any arguments that I agree with'.

Cursory skim through thread = part of our culture, it will die, cognitive abilities, blah, blah, blah. I personally am not denying it's part of our culture, I fail to see how it's relevant when so many other aspects of culture don't get the same treatment and are still thriving. Again, I don't deny the benefits of learning a second language, but as has been pointed these benefits are most effective at a younger age, and I have no problem with Irish in primary schools. Come LC age, if a student hasn't benefited from learning a second language, they're unlikely to start now and if they do, they can easily achieve such benefits through a different language. HOW is mandatory Irish at LC so important? I did ordinary level, in higher level were ye all sitting around planning how to convert and enslave the rest of us or something. I can tell you that in ordinary we were still going over how to conjugate verbs, which is beyond a joke. I fail to see how allowing those layabouts with absolutely no interest in the language and spend most of their time disrupting the class or hogging all the teacher's attention will reduce the standard of Irish. In the ERSI survey mentioned above 93% said that they would like to see the language preserved at the very least, that is a staggeringly positive figure, if you look at the results to the poll in this thread, again it's surprisingly narrow. I am surprised, in a good way, not because I'm secretly pro mandatory Irish for LC but because it clearly demonstrates the goodwill that still exists towards Irish and only vindicates my own belief that if Irish were to be made optional at LC it really wouldn't be in any danger of death.

Here's the survey if you want to have a gander yourself, well worth a read for anyone who is interested in the state of the language

looking_around

Steviemoyne wrote: »

I didn't do Irish for my Leaving Cert. I plain refused to engage with the class or do any exams in it after Junior Cert.

Why? Because any test I had in it I failed, even when asked to repeat it despite my best effort to learn the language, I was humiliated in class by so called "Irish Teachers" who apparently couldn't appreciate that a student had genuine trouble learning a subject simply because the rest of the class were doing ok.

This lead to undue stress and I could see myself that my other subjects were suffering as a result,

So I used the time of the classes to study and work on my other subjects. I didn't sit the test and a got a no grade marking for it, this ruled me out of doing numerous things and added on an extra 2 years to my learning experience to get where I am today and I genuinely feel better off for it. Those are 2 years of my life however that I won't get back, all due to the fact that the language is compulsory.

If it cannot be changed to a choice then I would at least like to see changes that mean barriers are not placed on you after the Leaving Cert as a result such as applying for certain colleges or jobs.

Sounds awfully familiar.

Except Irish hasn't been a barrier for me at all. Some unis/IT's it is. Others it isn't. Cork and Limerick, seem to reguire English OR Irish, one language, pass maths etc.
but then, I've also only looked at the relevant science/maths courses.
__
Alot of teachers are awful.

I remember in 1st year, the Irish teacher asking if anyone didn't know how to count in Irish. I put my hand up..and she started laughing! and encourage dthe rest of the class to laugh. "what do you mean you don't know how to count, everyone does." .... I felt so bad after that, that I was wary of asking any teacher for help in other classes too.
I was never given any ground work on Irish and was expected to manage the class work.
Only 2 years later, with a new teacher was there any real support to learn the language, and although I was interested, it was too late to try and play catch up. I also felt under a great amount of stress with other subjects that 2 years after that, I decided enough was enough, and I wasn't going to waste time on it.

The biggest issues when it comes to learning the language isn't the lack of it being an option.
It's terrible teachers.
and not teaching the language like a foreign language.

but even if that changed, it really should be treated like an option, it's "specialised careers" etc that need it, just like you don't need chemistry or honours maths if you're going into languages. or primary school teaching.
I do also think Unis/colleges should require a second language. You don't need french/german to be a teacher for example, or a doctor. If you want to do languages in your LC thats fine, if you don't that should be fine too.

The LC should be somewhat flexible. (the LC, not the jc, not primary school).

RandomName2

AngryHippie wrote: »

Points 1-5 are all linked, and are entirely relevant to the discussion. If you can't see that, its because you are blinding yourself with trees.
Look at the dept. of educations mandate to treat education as an overall strategy, rather than focusing on one miniscule element of policy and singling it out for ridicule because it doesn't suit your agenda.

If Irish becomes optional for the LC then we won't have teachers qualified to teach Irish in junior schools?

I don't really know what you're basing that off - even though it's currently 'optional' whether you wish to take Irish at higher, ordinary or foundation level at LC you are barred from primary school teaching unless you have higher level Irish. Just maintain that requirement - simples.

Also, as an analogy, all the currently optional LC subjects that happen to be currently taught in primary schools. Sheesh.

AngryHippie wrote: »

no.6 I never said Teenagers are stupid. my exact words were I stand by this. Teenagers are prone to making less than sensible decisions, making snap judgements and having volatile emotional states. This has been shown to be largely due to the developmental stage that the emotional centers of their Brains are going through during and shortly after puberty. They are prone to getting frustrated and upset and being brutally honest, they are prone to making poor decisions that they later regret. Not because they are stupid, because they are teenagers.

That does sound a trifle bit patronising, even if it isn't intended.

Besides which: the hypothetical situation of a 15/16 year old having the option to choose Irish is more important than

1. CAO options
2. Sciences
3. History
4. Foreign language

Really?

AngryHippie wrote: »

no. 7 is relevant as it has been used as an argument for scrapping Irish as a compulsory subject. I have stated that it doesn't stand up as a reason to scrap it, and now you say it's irrelevant......:rolleyes:

No 7 is partially relevant (for people wondering what no 7 is about, it's the argument that foundation level Irish frees up time for other subjects)

Foundation Irish is really, really easy. It's also totally pointless as it gives 0 points iirc and doesn't fill the requirement of Irish for universities that demand it. Also, schools will have at least 5 hours a week dedicated to teaching Irish; somewhat gratuitous for foundation level Irish. Even if you hate Irish and are no good at it you may as well chase your losses to that end.

Steviemoyne wrote: »

I didn't do Irish for my Leaving Cert. I plain refused to engage with the class or do any exams in it after Junior Cert.

How did you get an exemption?

Steviemoyne

RandomName2 wrote: »

How did you get an exemption?

I didn't. The principle made a fuss over it when I visited and said I was no longer going to do it saying they get EU funding for every student that does Irish (I have no idea if that is a fact, it's just the excuse that was given and what was said) and that I had to do it.

I put the foot down and eventually it was accepted that I would sit down the back of the Irish classes and carry on with other subject work or studying.

When the time came around for the Irish exam I simply had to sign my details on the exam paper, get up and leave.

mada999

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

They way Irish is taught in school is really the only reason people dislike it .We need a big overhaul of the the Irish language pedagogy so that student's can actually speak it. Some people see the Irish language as embarrassing , but whats more embarrassing would be losing an important contingent of our Identity.

This is the problem, most people learn Irish from primary school into secondary school... There's only 1 reason why 99% of the country are crap at it and its because its not been taught correctly. Surely, after years old learning something we should be fluent in it?

Stop teaching stupid prose and stuff and make sure children actually have the basics of the language right before moving on.

That's the reason why people have 'no need for it' is because they are brutal at it... make them good at it and they would love doing it..

looking_around

RandomName2 wrote: »

Foundation Irish is really, really easy. It's also totally pointless as it gives 0 points iirc and doesn't fill the requirement of Irish for universities that demand it. Also, schools will have at least 5 hours a week dedicated to teaching Irish; somewhat gratuitous for foundation level Irish. Even if you hate Irish and are no good at it you may as well chase your losses to that end.

How did you get an exemption?

Yup one could do foundation but it doesn't satisfy the requirements of PASS Irish.

I didn't do Irish for my LC.
Just point blank refused in the final year. Didn't even go to the class.
Was never given any hassle by the school and I never applied for it on my LC.
So not only did I not sit an exam, There wasn't an exam for me to sit.
This was only a few years ago.

What I remembered reading when I chose to skip the class, was that Irish was compulsory to learn, but not compulsory to sit an exam for. This may have changed. Or I may have read wrong.
It's not been an issue for me however. So idk.

Ashbx

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Oh boy, an answer that didn't mention culture, I feel as giddy as a school girl on prom night!


P.S. To the people who thanked his post did you even read it?

Don't give out to other people for agreeing with an opinion that you don't like!!!

Dan_Solo

Reekwind wrote: »

As it continues to do now when almost every adult member is provided with twelve years (more?) of Irish education? No one really likes how Irish is taught today but it's hard to believe that the standard or popularity of the language would increase without the current investment levels. Let's be frank: unless something is done, Irish will be dead within a century. That 'something to be done' should not include 'stop encouraging people to learn the language'.

Why do you assume there is "something to be done"? What about "do nothing, Irish is dead but nobody really wanted to speak it anyway"?

Dan_Solo

Mr. G wrote: »

The Irish language is part of our culture.

Why on earth do you think that is a justification for any enforced teaching regimen? Do you really want a list of all the other things that are/were "part of our culture" that you should therefore also be proposing be made compulsory?

Garzard

Part of our culture? Forced nationalism is what I call it.